BACHIA MISTRI Vs. SHANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal which raises a short but interesting point under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The only question raised by the appeal is whether the deceased man, whose name was Parma, was a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n), Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as subsequently amended. The facts are very short. The appellant Bachia is a Mistri who carries on a contractor's business. So far as this particular case is concerned, it is only relevant to notice that he had a contract to carry out the annual repair and whitewashing of the District Board Hospital at Almora. It is common ground that for the purpose of fulfilling this contract the workman Parma was engaged by Bachia for some ten or twelve days. We have little or no other evidence as to what the employment of Parma had been before or was after his engagement on this contract, except that one witness has said that "He did not work continuously, but only as required," while another witness has said that "He did not work in any fixed place but wherever he was employed." In the course of his employment with the appellant Parma fell off a ladder while whitewashing the ceiling and walls of the hospital and he died as a result of this fall. The respondent is his daughter and she has been awarded a sum of five hundred and fifty rupees by way of compensation. The definition of a workman is contained in Section 2(1)(n) of the Act and so far as material is this: (n) Workman means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's trade or business) who is.... (ii) employed...on monthly wages not exceeding three hundred rupees, in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule 2....

(2.) Turning to Schedule 2, the appropriate heading of it is heading (viii) which qualifies as a workman any person who is "employed in the construction, repair or demolition of"...certain buildings and other things:

(3.) The first question that arises is whether the whitewashing of the walls and ceiling of the hospital, in which Parma was engaged when he fell off the ladder, constituted an employment in the "repair" of the hospital. That question might have been a more difficult one than it is to answer had we not had for our guidance the benefit of certain English decisions which are practically on all fours with the present ease. We do not propose to refer to them at length except to say that as recently as May 1945 the case in Berriman V/s. L. & N.E. Ry. Co. (1945) 1 K.B. 462 was decided by the English Court of Appeal on facts materially similar to the present facts. The case there was one in which a workman was engaged at the time he met with his accident in oiling the permanent way of an English Railway. It fell to be considered whether he was repairing the permanent way and it was held that the word repair was wide enough to cover a process which constituted the maintenance of the permanent way. Reference was made in the course of this case to other decisions and particularly to the authorities of Dredge V/s. Conway Jones & Co. (1901) 2 K.B. 42 and Hoddinott V/s. Newton Chambers (191) 1901 A.C. 49 in the House of Lords in which again the precise words "construction, re-pair or demolition" fell to be considered. In these cases painting a house was held to be a repair and it followed that whitewashing a house was also held to be a repair. These authorities are not, of course, binding on us in India, but we see no sufficient reason not to accept gratefully the guidance they offer us and accordingly we have come to the conclusion on this part of the case that at the time he met with his accident Parma was employed in repairing the District Board Hospital.